- From: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 00:34:15 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
At 2001-01-02 08:49-0600, Jon Gunderson wrote: >Ian, >Sounds fine to me. > >Jon > >... Ian: >>I propose the following formulation of the merged >>checkpoints (a little easier to read, I think): Ian: is it your intent for the user to do it page-by-page if only some author-specified choices are objectionable? If so, this seems to place an unnecessary aggravation on that user. >><NEW> >>Allow the user to configure the foreground and background >>color of all text, with an option to set the default choices >>to override foreground >>and background colors specified by the author or user agent omit the following "defaults" >>defaults. >>Allow the user to select from among the range of >>system colors. >></NEW> OK, though I believe that "user to configure" should include ability to provide the override to replace any author-specified or user-agent default, rather than page-by-page, as the checkpoint suggests to me. Another nit: "domain" of system colors, from which a choice is made. My training suggests that "domain" applies to the definition of available values for a function, and that "range" applies to result. In color-space, "gamut" may be the word you seek. To avoid the issue: Note: Allow the user to select defaults from among the available system colors, preferably chosen from among the "safe 216" choices that are generally available: (0 3 6 9 B E) for each of three Red-Green-Blue primaries. >> "Checkpoints for visually rendered text (content accessibility)" Good. >>-- >>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs > >Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP Regards/Harvey Bingham
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2001 00:36:45 UTC